Third Party Presidential Candidates

If no one votes for a person that has no chance of winning then that person has no chance of winning.

A vote is never wasted. If the person you feel is best qualified is the person you vote for then you have spoken your mind and made your voice heard.

If all you ever do is vote for people that you think everyone else is going to vote for why bother? Let them do the voting for you and stay home to catch a few hours extra ZZZZs.

Heck a monkey can be trained to pull the same lever as everyone else. If your choice to vote Republican is a well thought out choice that's great.

The problem is that there are way too many people that pull that same lever that their ancestors have for the past 4 generations without having a clue why the first one made that choice.

That choice could have been as simple as that darn Democrat Smith wouldn't buy my land for the County so when that Republican Jones said he would, I voted for him and told all my friends to vote for him. And by golly when Jones got in office he bought my land for twice what it was worth and we've been voting Republican ever since.

Political advertisement paid for and approved by, Mike Heemer, write-in, for Commission Chair.

At long last, a topic not mired in the CCAC disease. While I don't always agree with Felix, I do thank him for a worthy subject.

I agree with some of your statements, Felix. there are a couple I would ask you to be more specific on. Or actually, would like to persue a furtherdialogue on.  First, The first is that there is no way any of these people are going to win, or even come close.  Nader, Greens, Libertarians, and Constitution are individualy lucky if they can get 1 or 2 percent of the vote in any state, this is correct as far as the final results indicate. For accuracy sake, before Ross Perot imploded on his second attempt at the presidency, he did garner 18% of the vote in 1980. A Herculean achievement by anyone's standard. Unfortunately, this group dwindled rather than building on fervor of those who are fed up with business as usual.

Second,As another objection to third parties, I don't agree with the sentiment of "even if I don't win, at least I will get my message out." I agree with the sentiment you express but I disagree that this is the sole criterion many who vote for third parties ascribe to. When I vote for a third party candidate it is because I truly believe that neither of the majors is suited for the job and I don't want to be blamed for putting a jerk in office. This is why I will not vote for either McCain or Obama. I will probbaly write in Dave Barry again. I've done it before.

Finally, Yet another objection to third parties is that while they have no chance of winning, the few votes they get can tip the scale towards either the Republicans or the Democrats.  Many Republicans feel the Perot campaign gave Clinton the White House in 92, some Democrats feel that Nader votes mistakenly cast for Bush gave Bush Florida in 2000. This is, after all these years, still an extremely interesting subject to discuss. I tend to agree that Perot probably was instrumental in electing Clinton twice as Clinton never achieved a plurality. As for Nader putting Bush in the White House, I was under the assumption that was either due to Pat Buchanan or incompetent senior citizens. Many blamed the Democrat designed ballot in Palm Beach County for causing witless oldsters to mark the wrong spot. I can say neither of my parents had that problem. The dirty little secret in West Palm Beach is the popularity of the John Birch Society. So, no, I do not believe there were as many "mistaken" votes for Buchanan as they would have you believe.

I agree with much of the rest of your blog, Felix and would like to say thank you again for interesting diversion from the Pee Wee Herman Name Calling Group, (I know you are but what am I?)

I am also looking forward to some contributions from others.

 Lily's Lore "I don't ever want to be rescued And I don't ever want to be saved I got a feelin' that I'm gonna be alive forever Dancin' on the edge of a grave..." Jim Steinman

Lily, you are correct, it was Buchanan with the Reform Party rather than Green Nader who did better than expected in Palm Beach county.  According to Wikipedia, Ross Perot, the founder of the Reform Party, endorsed Bush.  It has to be a real letdown for a candidate when the party leader endorses the competition.

I make a distinction between Perot and most other third-party or independent candidates in that Perot really was trying.  On a historic note, Perot was the second most popular third-party candidate in American history, the most popular being Teddy Roosevelt running for a second term with the Bull-Moose party.  

I have a love/hate relationship with the John Birch Society, and that is much the same way I consider both Buchanan and Ron Paul: they say one thing I agree with, then something else that I am either unsure of or disagree with.  I have never heard that Palm Beach is a John Birch stronghold, I'll take your word for it.  However, I cannot say that an area having a large number of Birchers would account for a higher than usual number of votes cast for Buchanan.  There was a "who are you voting for president" poll recently on the JBS website, on clicking I saw that they were divided about half and half between Libertarian and Constitution, a small percentage voting Republican and a tiny fraction of a percent voting Democrat.  I would expect today most Bircher votes would go their two prefered parties, however, I don't know how they voted in 2000.  I don't see Reform at all on the 2008 ballot, maybe it was a more viable party back then.

I don't understand your opening statement about "not always agreeing with Felix."  Agreeing with Felix is like agreeing with factcheck.

If anyone has a third party they like, or hate, bring it on.  Later on I'm going to post a little about the Prohibition Party (I never heard of them before either, before today) just to comment on a curiosity. 

Well, i hate to burst any latter blogging bubbles, but the prohibition party was a one time a vibrant third party garnering many votes, not scaring any Reps. or Dems. but earning enough votes to be listed in the history books. 

Look up some names, very interesting stories through research:

John P. St. John, election of 1884 with 1.5%

Clinton B. Fisk, election of 1888 with 2.2%

John Bidwell, election of 1892 with 2.2%

John C. Wooley, election of 1900 with 1.5%

Silas C. Swallow, election of 1904 with 1.9%

Eugene W. Chafin and John F. Hanly, up until the election of 1916, this party usually garnered over 1% of the vote, no easy feat for a third party, less you be Ross Perot.

The single-member district, simple-majority system the United States uses for most of its electoral contests help maintain a two party system and penalizes third parties.

In order to secure representaion, a minor party must not only find considerable support in the populace but acheive more support in some districts than the established major parties.

If it becomes the choice of 10% of voters in many different districts, it wins no seats.

Therefore third parties are constantly vulnerable to the charge that a vote for one of them is essentially a wasted vote, since it is unlikely to join enough others to constitute a plurality of all votes cast.

TRUTHHURTS

Please go to http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

and sign the petition for the Fair Tax Bill. Tell Congress to pass this Bill.

Finder, TR, I'm not sure where either of you are coming from, but let me clarify my position that I don't believe in equal oportunity in politics.

2004 election results

Republican 50%

Democrat 48%

Nader 0.38%

Libertarian 0.32%

Constitution 0.12%

Green 0.1%

Look at the third parties from 2004.  What's .38%, one out of every 308 voters?  People hold the Democrats and Republicans to high standards, I say the same should apply to third-party candidates.  If they want my vote, or anyone else's they need to earn it, not just on issues, but on a being a party.  A party that can't even get 1% of the vote is more a club than a party.  The Democrats and the Republicans didn't spring out of nowhere, they fought for their position, third parties need to do the same.  No pity votes, no "it's not fair votes," build a real party and get some earned votes.

I feel the same way about county politics.  You want it, go and get it.  No whining about "choice" or "getting out a message."   

FK

I was not advoating third parties, just expressing why I beleive voting that way is a wasted vote. I think the system is set as such that one of the two major parties will be the victor. 

TRUTHHURTS

Please go to http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

and sign the petition for the Fair Tax Bill. Tell Congress to pass this Bill.

FELIX

I see what you are saying but, I do believe a third party is what this country needs. Everyone is just going about it the wrong way. As most Americans we want instant success NOW. In the past this might have worked, but now for it to work I believe it will take 10-20 years of dedicated work of a new,or say the Libertarian party that is already well funded.

What I don’t understand is why all these parties think they can start from the top. They only way, at least in my opinion is to start at the state level. After winning  state house seats, and being effective move up to the federal level of congress and the senate. Show the country your party has ideas, stick to those ideas and have a platform that appeals to most. It is not a quick road to victory, and you must have very like minded people in your party.

Right now we have two parties that aren’t too much apart in thinking. They both seem to want to make  the government bigger, which means spending more of our money.

This is the first election that I am voting for the lesser of two evils. I don’t like that I feel this way but I will always vote, and I will never vote for someone who does not stand a chance of winning just to make a point.

FELIX  to your good health
 

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their part.

...third parties are at a deficit. The thugs in the two major parties brook no competition but that doesn't mean going along with what one does not believe in.  In 1994 when Newt Gingrich turned congressional elections, which had always been based on local politics, into a national referendum it was an important change. The platform they outlined was long overdue. So what happened? These same bunch of reprobates then morphed right into the very people they campaigned against. Obviously nobody can be trusted for very long. The system corrupts absolutely.

What is the solution? I believe we can fairly state that no one elected to national office should be allowed to stay more than four years. This should include the Senate. They are a bunch of elitists with out any real basis for such a label. Look at Ted Kennedy, Ted Stevens or Robert Byrd. They are so old a taxidermist couldn't make them look better. And they contribute nothing to the country, only themselves. The presidency (and this is only my opinion, I am not looking to change anyone's mind) should be limited to a single six year term. I base this thought on the observation that no matter who is president, the majority (again this is only my perception) tires of whoever is there after six years.

This election cycle we have no incumbent or heir apparent to the presidency. But I will bet dollars to donut holes that whoever is elected will have a very brief honeymoon and based on the past 28 years, will not have an approval rating above 50 per cent after two years. (Here I am being generous.) As such, voting either Democrat or Republican is an exercise in futility. By voting third party I can absolve myself of future blame. If more of us refused to accept blame for the doings of the parties perhaps we could get more viable and more acceptable choices.

Lily's Lore "I don't ever want to be rescued And I don't ever want to be saved I got a feelin' that I'm gonna be alive forever Dancin' on the edge of a grave..." Jim Steinman

deleted

I think your comments parallel each other in that they show dissatisfaction with the current candidates, parties, and system.  I will give you both a generalized answer.

I did previously post the 2008 Platform of the Prohibition Party, but for some reason it messed up the entire page of comments so I deleted it.  Here's a link instead:

http://www.prohibitionists.org/

I think it's funny that the mascot of the Prohibition Party is a camel.  I didn't study their platform in detail, but I find it interesting that different third parties have points in common, the most common of these being smaller government, lower taxes, non-intervention, and usually something related to trade.  The third parties seem to offer the things that many people want, but the two major parties have not given. 

There is more to the third parties not being viable than just people saying that they are a wasted vote.  I was on the Constitution Party website, they said that a major problem was finding people that were willing to run.  In my opinion, this puts third parties in the ridiculous position of running for president when they've had few if any victories for lower offices.  Besides money and numbers, the problem of the third party seems to be a lack of willingness by party members to step up to the plate.  My only explanation is that people who are attracted to third parties are probably people who want to complain about the system rather than try to fix it.  What does it hurt to run?  Look at Heemer; he has no network, not a lot of money, but he's running.  You can't win it if you're not in it.  I can't help but feel that there have to be places and offices that are vulnerable to organized campaigns by third parties, and if they could concentrate a state party effort on a few positions they could win a little here and a little there.  I think the best way they could advertise their parties would be to have a few people in office, but they can't seem to get anyone to run for anything other than president. 

FTD, I get the idea you are going to vote for McCain, but are not happy about it.  I feel your pain.  I watched the economic debate the other night.  It didn't keep my attention, but when I was paying attention it made me angry that often Obama sounded better.  I know he is just saying what he thinks will get him elected, but it's bad for the Republicans when the Democrat sounds like the candidate for lower taxes and more jobs.  I found myself thinking how much better I would feel for the chances of Republican victory if it was Romney up there debating the economy.  I'm going to vote for McCain, I hope he wins, but if he loses I will be very angry with my party for picking him as our candidate.  You can't blog a candidate into office, but if he loses you can send angry e-mails to every party hack that tried to put him there.   

This time around, Felix, you are right on target. (Factcheck not withstanding.)  :>) The dissatisfaction seems to spill across party lines. I expect there may be just as many unhappy democrats as unhappy Republicans. I'm truly disappointed in myself for having remained a Republican as long as I did. (Now I refuse to join anything.) I did see the writing on the wall when George Bush 41 was elected. Proving his incompetency was having a 91% approval rating in 1991 and losing the '92 election. Those reluctant to look in the mirror have to assume some of the blame. It wasn't just Perot but a disillusionment with Bush as an incumbent. Sadly, I see nobody on the horizon capable of sparking the citizenry to action. Every candidate this time out just had no real appeal, hence, the dullness of the last two standing.

Lily's Lore "I don't ever want to be rescued And I don't ever want to be saved I got a feelin' that I'm gonna be alive forever Dancin' on the edge of a grave..." Jim Steinman

09/24/2008

Ron Paul makes his presidential pick

by Drew Zahn
WorldNetDaily.com

Representative Ron Paul of Texas, a former seeker of the Republican nomination for president, has endorsed Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin for president in 2008.

Ironically, Paul says he was swayed to make the endorsement by former Republican Bob Barr, who is now running for president on the Libertarian Party’s ticket, the same party which nominated Paul for president in 1988.

’The Libertarian Party candidate admonished me for ’remaining neutral’ in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November," Paul wrote both on his Campaign for Liberty website and as a contributor to SmallGovTimes.com. "I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate."

Baldwin, a pastor, author and radio talk show host from Florida, was nominated by the Constitution Party for president in April.

The Baldwin campaign released a statement following the endorsement in which Baldwin said, "I am humbled and deeply grateful to Dr. Paul for his support. There could not be higher praise. I am committed to carrying on the Ron Paul Revolution for a return to constitutionally limited government."

Paul wrote about his hesitation in endorsing a candidate and his attempt at remaining neutral:

"It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign."

"I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well," Paul wrote. "The more votes they get, the better."

Paul’s announcement also contained some scathing words for Republicans, Democrats and an election system that he perceives as "a gross deception."

"(The election process) is controlled by the powerful elite to make sure that neither candidate of the two major parties will challenge the status quo," Paul wrote. "There is no real choice between the two major parties and their nominees, only the rhetoric varies. The amazingly long campaign is designed to make sure the real issues are ignored."

Paul’s endorsement, which comes at the end of his announcement (the full text of which can be read here), is foreshadowed by his earlier words, trumpeting the call to unity among various groups seeking to overcome the two-party status quo.

"Principled people are not shy in participating with others and will defend their beliefs on their merits," he wrote.

Dang! I guess i shoul say thanks Felix. I thought Ron Paul would be th ebest choice fer me but now i have to come up with another pick. Fantasy football is easier than this. Oh, thank you for the list of the other candidates. I guess I got some reading to do.

FELIX

Yes I will have to vote for McCain, but most people know he is really a “RINO”. The only reason I will vote for him is I believe, at least  I hope he is true to his word about protecting America, other than that I really don’t think there is much difference between the two.

I see that you seem to agree we me about a third party needing to start at the local / state level and then moving up to the federal level. What if Ross Perot had won. He would have had no support in the House or Senate. I believe both houses would have done everything they could to make him look bad so a third party candidate would never come close again. That is why you have to have support in place before you run for the top office.

FELIX to your good health
 

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their part.

A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for:

1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
4. Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;
6. States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved for the state and local jurisdictions;
7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

Make the right choice for all of us and our children!

JATFUS! 

Steven P Munsey A+, MCP, IASO Orange Park | Green Cove Springs munsey13@comcast.net

Felix-

Didn't you vote for Gary Newman for Sheriff? I think Gary is a fine man, and would have probably made a good Sheriff, but the general feeling was that he didn't have much of a chance, because he didn't have the name recognition that the other two had.

I could be mistaken, but I thought we had blogged about that and you had commented on it..

I feel the same way about county politics.  You want it, go and get it.  No whining about "choice" or "getting out a message." 

Was that meant for or about anyone or any group in particular? I don't understand where this came from or what it is supposed to mean or imply. 

Political advertisement paid for and approved by, Mike Heemer, write-in, for Commission Chair.

Munses, I wish I shared your optimism and idealism.  The qualities you just listed describe the way that I want the Republican party to be. 

This blog about third parties has caused me once again to talke a look at the Constitution Party who I've found match my ideals more than does the current Repubican Party.  However, I'm trying to remember that it is easy to be an idealist when you don't have to deal with any real problems, kind of like a person who is a know-it-all and acts like something is easy until they actually have to do something, and then find that the reality is much messier than their ideals.  If the Constitution Party was in the place of the Republican party I think many of their ideals would take a second place to dealing with the problems of government.  Still I wish the Republicans were more like the Constitution Party on at least a few issues.

You had previously expressed support for amendment 2.  There was a letter today in the Times Union that disputed Ron Littlepage's column from last week, and described the amendment as a citizen's initiative.  If you want to look at it online, the address is www.jacksonville.com   

Yes, I did vote for Mr. Newman, but there is a world of difference between voting for a darkhorse in a county election and voting for a third party in a national election.  If we contrast the county to the nation you will see what I mean.

First, the county is a small electorate, especially during a primary.  I was over-optomistic about the Newman campaign, but my feeling was that if enough effort and ingenuity were expended that it could be anyone's game.  This was the first county election that I had paid attention to, but the reality is that in most 3-person races there will be two major contenders and there will be a third contender that gets clobbered.  However, I still feel that in a race as small as the Clay County Primaries there is a way for anyone to win if they can just figure out what they need to do.  Newman was always an unlikely choice to win, but I never felt it was impossible for him to win.

In contrast, right now it is impossible for a third party to win a national election.  Perot with 18% did incredibly well, but he was an exception to the rule.  Nader got .38% of the vote in the 2004 election; yes, Newman was an unlikely candidate, but as a ratio his 7% dwarfs Naders .38%.   

In the Sheriff's election, all three candidates were from the same party, and therefore equally acceptable in what is largely a Republican county.  They had equal exposure during forums, and about equal press coverage.  You will notice in the national media that there is virtually no coverage of third parties, and there are no third parties in the debates. 

Under these circumstances, it is impossible for a third party to win.  I do not see this as being fair or unfair, it is just the reality of the situation, and if it is to change the third parties are the ones who will have to work for that change. 

On a county level I suppose that it is improbable for a third party to win, it is not impossible.  I would say their chances would be about the same as an independent's, maybe a little bit better than a democrat's.  I would be willing to vote for an independent or a third party in a county election if I believed in the candidate, and I would just hope they would be able to overcome the difficulty of running as a non-republican in a republican majority county.

Continuing from the last post, I want to make clear that even though I won't vote for an impossible choice, I will vote for an unlikely choice on principle. However, I often do not realize how unlikely my choices are.  When it comes to selecting candidates I definitely march to the beat of a different drum, the result of this being that very few I voted for won.

I voted for Romney...for those who voted for someone else, I don't know what you were thinking.

In the county primaries, my only picks that won were Jett, Studdard, and Ricks (for committewoman.)

Some of my selection that lost were near losses, however, I picked three candidates who definitely fall into the clobbered category, these being Newman, Weisenberger, and Coleman. 

Just for conversation, I'll explain some of my picks.

Francis for schoolboard-I thought he knew more about the schools and was more genuine than Farell.  The majority disagreed.

Thurmon for superintendent-I heard him speak at Fleming Island Republicans way back around January, I thought he was squared away and I thought he had good ideas.  I also spent a little time talking to him outside of the Orange Park tax collectors office, he's a pretty nice guy in person.  The majority disagreed

Plotkin for SAO- I just didn't like Corey.  No rational reason, I just don't like her.  The majority disagreed.

Ricks for SOE-I had originally picked Chambliss because I felt he was more knowledgeable, but there were so many snafus with the SOE I changed to Ricks because I felt there needed to be a complete changing of the guard.  The majority disagreed.

Newman-I thought he had good ideas, and I felt he could work out the differences between the CCSO and the FOP.  The majority disagreed.

Weisenberger and Coleman were my strangest choices in that I liked them because both had in debates said something incredibly complicated.  For some reason that does it for me.  Still, I think Hutchings will do a fine job and while I wouldn't (and didn't) vote for Robinson, hopefully he can bring some business sense to the BCC.  

In retrospect even I don't understand what my comments mean.  I can't even guess at what I was thinking.

However, a few questions for you:

Are you getting your message out?

If not, are you really a choice?

Felix;

I'm getting my message out the best I can with what assets I have available. It just so happens that my assets don't include $50K of somebody else's money. I don't have the kind of money it takes to spend $5400 for a billboard sign.

My message is that of the two people running for Chair I am the better choice. I have more experience and a better practical education. In my opinion a JD in that job doesn't mean a whole lot. We've got a Lawyer and a couple of assistants for the Board that get paid a pretty good chunk of change to provide legal advice.

The only financial contributors I have are me, my wife and a very kind lady that provided the expertise to make my fliers. It won't take you a very long time to read my financial records.

Speaking of messages, other than the things I see in ads and some signs I haven't seen or heard one peep about what my opponent's message is or where he stands on anything. Have you? If so, what is his message and his stance?

Well I did hear one or two messages from him. According to his representative he is the one that got us the biggest tax cut Clay County has ever seen. Of course that's part of the reason we are now struggling financially. Some gift.

But all will be fixed when we get our new tollway and give away the property tax dollars on that land and take back all that tax break plus more in tolls for the citizens that are forced to use that tollway and a toll bridge instead of the free one we used to have. 

If I'm elected I won't be taking on a 4th part time job along with a full time job. The only job I'll have is the Chair position. I have the time to really commit to this job to get it going in the direction it needs to go.  

Felix, here's some more of my message. If you are satisfied with the same things that have been going on in this county, then don't vote for me because I plan on shaking the tree and pruning some of the dead wood. There is way too much nepotism going on here. With me you don't have to worry about that. I don't have any kin that live here.

Political advertisement paid for and approved by, Mike Heemer, write-in, for Commission Chair.

a mokey on crack is has more common sense then you

Ok Finder, you got me there.  I should as much as anyone should know how hard it is to get any information to the voters.  No, I don't know anything about Bradley other than he is a lawyer, his firm is council for OP and KH, he was on the CRC, and he was appointed to the BCC. 

I have been meaning to learn more about Bradley, but I have been pretty much out of the loop lately.  I haven't been to any Republican events since the primaries ended, but it's not really my job to learn about Bradley, it's his job to sell himself to me and all the other voters. 

What I would like to see is a contest between two candidates.  It could very well be that the Chair will be eliminated in appeal, but it also may not be.  From what I gather the Republican Party plan is just to ignore all challengers and hope the Republican majority will carry the election.  I understand the logic of this, and that it is the purpose of a party to elect it's candidates, but it's cowardly and dull, and if effective it is not much different than Bradley running unopposed.  It also fails to present the voters with a choice of the best candidate, it just lets them pick between a Republican they know a few things about and a write-in they know virtually nothing about.

I don't think many people will vote for you if they don't know you.  I don't have any ideas about how you can bridge the information gap.  My impression is that your only plan to get elected is to blog and hope that dissatisfaction among voters will cause them to pick you over Bradley.  It is my opinion that will only work if the voters see you as a better choice.  I could very well be wrong, but I think if you do nothing more than what you have been doing then you will lose.  Honestly, I very probably wasn't going to vote for you anyway, but I would prefer to cast a vote for someone rather than just against someone. 

Regarding an earlier comment "if you want it, go and get it."  There were some earlier comments on mcs about how there were few forums for independents, there are barriers for independents, etc.  Leaders don't complain about lack of opportunity, they make oportunities.   The simple rule of politics is that people who can't get elected don't deserve to be elected. 

From what I gather the Republican Party plan is just to ignore all challengers and hope the Republican majority will carry the election.

Al Capp described these critters as Shmoos. I'm happy to see they are not yet extinct.

a mokey on crack is has more common sense then you

And, as fate would have it, a better speller than you. What a freakin' loser. Are you a Fair Tax supporter too?

Mike, yes, it is an uphill battle. But 'tis better to have tried and failed than never have tried at all. (Apologies to Alfred Lord Tennyson.)

Lily's Lore "I don't ever want to be rescued And I don't ever want to be saved I got a feelin' that I'm gonna be alive forever Dancin' on the edge of a grave..." Jim Steinman

PLEASE don't let me sound like Obama or McCain! But things do need changing. I'm not whining, just trying to state facts.

Felix, if the Post-Primary Republican events are anything like the Pre-Primary events the only thing you are going to know about Bradley when you get done listening is that you could have learned that by reading his Bio on the SOE site.

There are not and probably will not be any debates scheduled between any of the Republican candidates (SOS, D3 and Chair) and their opponents. You nailed that in one. Why would they do that? As you said, all they have to do is sit back and wait for the majority of the Republicans to vote lock step for the Republican candidate.

At the chance of sounding somewhat egotistical I'll include myself in this statement. All three of the non Republican candidates in these races are the best choice for the office they seek. But all you have to do is look at the money and where it is coming from and you can see how this story is going to end. The best we can hope for is a surprise ending on November 4th.

Take a look around the County, everyone talks about how we have problems that need to be fixed. If you've had nothing but hard core Republicans in office for the last 20 or 30 years who do you think caused those problems? They can't fix the problems because they caused the problems and can't get off the track they've been running on for the past 30 years.

Rob is a nice guy, I actually enjoyed talking with him on the couple of occasions we've met. My issue is that I can't see how he is going to be able to dedicate the time it takes to do this job. Yes it is only part time, but when you already have a full time job and three other part time jobs (Council for OP, KSH and the EH CDD) when do you fit in a 4th part time job?

But this is the game I bought into so I'll play me cards and take my chances. When the last hand is dealt on the 4th, if I lose, I hope that I have at least put a dent or two in some of those windmill blades.

Perhaps it will give some DEM or NPA the idea to come out in two years and challenge Diane Hutchings for the other at large seat. I think she's going to be beatable in 2010 just like I think D2 and D4 are going to be vulnerable. If the DEMs play their cards right and actually get active in trying to get someone in office (even if means supporting an NPA) they might win more than one seat.

But that's for a later time. 

Political advertisement paid for and approved by, Mike Heemer, write-in, for Commission Chair.